RANGNATH KISAN GADEKAR Vs. VAISHALI CHATURBHUJ SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the final judgment and order dated 30.3.1994 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom, in file No. 1993/ROR/727, the order dated 23.3.1996.by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad in Case No. RTS/69/ 93/94 and the order dated 16.12.1998 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Au-rangabad Division, Aurangabad in Case No. 96/ReV/R/143.

(2.) The background facts of the case as under:-

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the sale-deed in favour of petitioner No. 1 was never challenged by the respondents, and therefore, the further registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner No. 2 cannot be questioned. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 also became absolute owner of the property on the basis of the registered sale-deed executed by Chaturbhuj during his life time in the year 1983. It is further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 became absolute owner of the property, he validly transferred the said property to petitioner No. 2 and the Revenue Officers have duly certified the mutation entries to that effect. In view of this, it is not open for the Revenue authority to cancel the mutation entry and its certification and that too after lapse of so many years. It is further submitted that the sale-deed was never challenged by the respondents and the petitioner No. 1 was competent to sale the suit land in favour of the petitioner No. 2, therefore, the said transaction dated 18.6.1991 in favour of petitioner No. 2. by the petitioner No. 1 cannot be doubted or set aside. According to the learned Senior Counsel, principle of lis pendency are not applicable in the revenue proceedings in any case that can be validly made under section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, learned Counsel has invited my attention to the grounds in the petition and submitted that setting aside the mutation entry amounts to serious consequences including the consequences of suspending the sale-deed and such power is not vested in the revenue forum as contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further submitted that the suit filed by the respondent herein is already dismissed and therefore, in any case the order of cancellation of mutation entry cannot be permitted. The authorities below have failed to prove that the mutation entry No. 976 as well as entry 469 have been drawn and duly certified as per law. There is no any reason to cancel the same. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed.